Obama on oil dependence

Beyond the risks inherent in drilling four miles beneath the surface of the Earth, our dependence on oil means that we will continue to send billions of dollars of our hard-earned wealth to other countries every month – including many in dangerous and unstable regions.

In other words, our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardise our national security. It will smother our planet. And it will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk.

Of course, almost every President going back to at least the 1970s has argued that the United States should move in such a direction. Hopefully, this time the message will be backed up by some strong policy actions.

If the Obama administration doesn’t manage to pass a climate bill before the mid-term elections, and if those elections then go badly for the Democrats, the chances for any meaningful climate change policy reform during Obama’s first term may be slim.

It’s amazing to me that with all the people denouncing BP all over the place that so few of them actually make this connection – that while they’re pointing the finger at BP, they should also be pointing a finger at themselves.

That’s the rate that people are releasing carbon to the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation today. I know, it’s apples and oranges; carbon in the form of oil is more immediately toxic to the environment than it is as CO2 (although CO2 may be more damaging on geologic time scales). But think of it — five thousand spills like in the Gulf of Mexico, all going at once, each releasing 40,000 barrels a day, every day for decades and centuries on end. We are burning a lot of carbon!

Of course, none of this is new. Plenty of presidents have claimed to want to drive the US economy toward the use of alternative forms of energy. Obama will have to put a lot more emphasis on the issue, if he wants to succeed to any meaningful degree.